Carol Linnit blogs:
"Recently the Alberta government proposed a plan to open this brutal form of 'wildlife management' to other regions, suggesting an extensive and costly cull in place of more responsible industrial development.This is clear evidence of the fact that Alberta’s tar sands oil is unquestionably conflict oil, despite the propaganda spouted by the “ethical oil” deception campaign. Aside from its disruptive affects on wildlife, tar sands oil is dirty, carbon intensive and energy inefficient from cradle to grave.Conservation and environmental groups are being falsely attacked as ‘radical ideologues' and 'saboteurs'. Neighbors are pitted against each other while important decisions about the future prosperity of all Canadians are rigged to favor the interests of multinational oil companies and foreign investors.
The wolf cull is ostensibly designed to protect northern Alberta’s woodland caribou, a species that in recent years has become critically threatened. But scientists have ridiculed the plan, saying this sort of ‘wildlife management’ turns the wolf into an innocent scapegoat, while the real culprit – the province’s aggressive timber, oil and gas development – is spared any real scrutiny or accountability."
Documents acquired through freedom of information requests reveal that the UK government is described by the Canadians as a ‘team leader’ in their Pan European Oil Sands Advocacy Strategy, aimed at stopping the EU from labelling tar sands fuel as more carbon-intensive than conventional oil in the Fuel Quality Directive. As part of this pro-tar sands lobby offensive, Canada hosted a two-day retreat in London for Canadian diplomats to receive training on how to respond to the plummeting reputation of the tar sands industry in Europe. In attendance at the retreat were the Royal Bank of Scotland, Shell, Statoil and Total, all of which have significant investments in tar sands development.
As a result, the UK has been actively lobbying EU member states to keep the EU market open to tar sands. At a recent vote on the Fuel Quality Directive, the UK was set to vote against the initiative. It switched position at the last minute and abstained, due to intense public pressure, but this meant that the vote was a stalemate, further delaying adoption of this important piece of legislation.